Speedlinking, July 7th, 2008
Speedlinking is yet another tool of the lazy blogger. Basically I smash together a bunch of interesting links that I collect every so often, and write a sentence or two about them.
This week’s Speedlinking is being brought to you courtesy of the useful Instapaper website, which I’ve been using to temporarily bookmark the below links.
- Hitchens, whom I sometimes find abhorrent, but always find intelligent and interesting writes what I think is the definitive article on waterboarding.
- Offshoring: relax! It’s good!
- I gave up on Seth’s Godin blog (I just didn’t find it generally interesting), but he relates a great story about a t-shirt order.
- *cough* Aggreget *cough*
- Raising taxes in a down economy? Not so smart.
- Great article about global warming, which really looks at the big picture.
Laws of Marketing 5: Focus
I’ve picked up a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries & Jack Trout, and I’m blogging a summary of each chapter.
Chapter 4. The Law of Focus
The most powerful concept in marketing is owning a word in the prospect’s mind.
“Owning” a word like Xerox owns “copy”, Kleenex owns “tissue”, and Volvo owns “safety”, is the most powerful concept in marketing. Just recently I linked to a site called Brand Tags (see also the Volvo and Xerox links) which might be a useful sort of word association tool to see if a brand has achieved the focus they are going for.
It should be a simple word, with a narrow focus. The word should also be benefit oriented.
Achieving this isn’t simply a matter of advertising. If a firm want to obtain this kind of obiquity, it should reduce the scope of its offering(s) to narrow their focus instead of chasing after everything.
Also, it helps if the word is an “opposing” word. It’s not a good idea to go after a word like “honesty” because no one is going after after “dishonesty”. Words like “honesty” and “quality” are merely table stakes.
Now that I’m at #5, what do you think about this book? Should I continue summarizing the remaining 17 chapters?
Laws of Marketing 4: Perception
I’ve picked up a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries & Jack Trout, and I’m blogging a summary of each chapter.
Chapter 4. The Law of Perception
Marketing is not a battle of products, it’s a battle of perception.
This chapter is a bit existential, and at times it seemed rather silly to see in a marketing book. Points such as:
- There is no objective reality
- All truth is relative
- Most people think they are better perceivers than everyone else
- People project to cope with being alone in the universe
The basic point is this: purchasing decisions are not based entirely on objective facts. The reasons for this are rooted in psychology, but it boils down to people being unique, having unique opinions, and have unique perspectives. Slap different logos on the exact same product, and you won’t necessarily get a 50-50 spread in choices. Put the same logo on two different flavors of soda and people will tell you there’s a difference between the flavors.
But whether or not perception actually is reality, a marketer should behave as if it is.
Brand Tags
What does a brand mean to you?
Look at a brand logo and think of the first word that comes to mind. Now have a hundred other people do the same thing.
That is what brand tags is.
“The basic idea of this site is that a brand exists entirely in people’s heads. Therefore, whatever it is they say a brand is, is what it is.”
Each brand has its own tag cloud. This site has potential to be gamed, of course, but I think the idea is pretty cool, and it doesn’t really look like it’s being gamed too much. Here are some examples of the biggest words in a tag cloud.
- NPR: boring, liberal, news, radio, smart
- Coke: classic, coke, drink, red, refreshing, soda, sugar, sweet
- Pepsi: coke, cola, drink, not coke, refreshing, soda, sugar, sweet
- GE: electric, electricity, light, lightbulb, old
I don’t know about you, but I can see some validation for the laws of marketing in here.
Laws of Marketing 3: Mind
I’ve picked up a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries & Jack Trout, and I’m blogging a summary of each chapter.
Chapter 3. The Law of Mind
It’s better to be first in the mind than to be the first in the marketplace.
Being first to market doesn’t really matter if you aren’t first in the mind of the consumer. For instance, the Altair 8800 is largely considered the first mass market PC, but it was largely eclipsed by later PCs such as the Apple II.
The role of money in marketing is important, but this law shows that money isn’t necesarily everying. It’s hard to overcome first imprssions and well-formed opinions, no matter how much money is spent.
The law of leadership still matters, but only to the extent that it usually provides access to the mind of the consumer.
Laws of Marketing 2: Category
I’ve picked up a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries & Jack Trout, and I’m blogging a summary of each chapter.
Some commenters from chapter 1 were really chomping at the bit with counterexamples. There are 21 other laws, people!
Chapter 2. The Law of Category
If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.
This is really just a more specific application of the first law. If you can’t be first in computers, be first in personal computers. If you can’t be the first to fly solo over the Atlantic, be the first woman to fly solo over the Atlantic (Amelia Earhart).
Instead of being a “me too” or an “also ran” brand that gets lost in the shuffle, invent a new category and be first in it. Sometimes even a better product isn’t the key. The question isn’t “How is this brand better than the competition?”, but “What is the brand first in?”
That’s all there is to that law.
IDEO designs a shopping cart in 5 days
IDEO is a design consulting firm. They have designed many of the things you use today. Probably some of the things you are using right now.
They’ve designed the first Apple mouse, the Palm V, and the Oral-B toothbrush gripper. They also designed a revolutionary shopping cart in 5 days…
They are no doubt the best design firm in the world, receiving more Industrial Design Excellence Awards than any other firm.
They are also total hippies:
- Idealized egalitarian meritocratic work environment? Check.
- Sticking it to “corporate America”? Check.
- “The basket is tyranny”? Check (19:15).
- Patrons of Whole Foods? Check.
- Can you naturally concatenate every sentence with “maaaaan”? Check.
Also, what’s the deal with Ted Koppel? His face looks like a hastily assembled Mr. Potatohead.
Laws of Marketing 1: Leadership
This is the start of a new series of posts here at mgroves.com.
I’ve picked up a book called The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Al Ries & Jack Trout. It’s a shortish book with 22 easy to digest chapters, and I think I can squeeze out 22 even shorter blog posts in summary.
Does this sound boring? We’ll see how far this goes. I might not make it to 22.
Okay, on with the first chapter. If you’re really impatient, you can get a full summary here, but it’s much shorter.
Chapter 1. The Law of Leadership
It’s better to be first than it is to be better.
Who remembers #2? Who was the second man to cross the Atlantic ocean by solo flight? Who was the second man on the moon? You get the picture.
People tend to stick with what they have. This is partly because people are somewhat risk averse and partly because there may be a switching cost involved (which may not even be monetary).
So, because of this law, the “first” brand becomes the “leading” brand, with corresponding shares of sales. This also might lead to brand names becoming generic names for a product category: It’s not paper copying, it’s “Xeroxing”. It’s not facial tissue, it’s Kleenex. It’s not soda, it’s Coke. It’s not plastic wrap, it’s Saran Wrap. Etc.
One important thing to talk about, since this is the first of (maybe) 22 posts: this law isn’t the only law of marketing, because I’m sure you can think of some counterexamples to this first law that are probably covered in the other 21. We’ll see. I haven’t read the whole book yet.
Remember this commercial?
If you grew up in the 90s like me, no doubt you probably used the “cha-ching!” catchphrase from Rally’s commercial.
Well here it is, a blast from the past.
Recognize the cashier?
That’s right, it’s Seth Green from Austin Powers and Robot Chicken. Who knew?
Here’s another one.
URANIUM!
DVRs are destroying commercials
DVRs are destroying TV commercials. Why watch a commercial when you can fast forward to the content? The catch-22 is, of course, why buy a commercial spot if no one is watching it? And then, why provide content if no one is paying for it?
Well, it becomes a real conundrum when the fact that DVR usage is only going to go up is factored in. Sure, there’s still lots of people now with “regular” TV–enough to subsidize us DVR users, but that certainly will change.
I don’t have any perfect answer, but I think that all TV viewers understand how it works: either I pay, or the sponsor pays–there is no free lunch. That being said, here are some general observations:
- The key feature of DVR isn’t necessarily commercial skipping, it’s convenience. I don’t have to be in front of my TV at a set time just to watch a show.
- People don’t DVR live sports events, or do so very rarely. They use DVRs to pause or do their own replays, but for the most part they watch them live.
- If the total amount of commercials were 30 seconds or less, I would be less likely to bother with fast forwarding.
- Fast forwarding does take some time! Why not use that time to show a banner ad or something?
- TV networks can’t really touch TiVo, but they could tap the cable companies for a little extra dough. A DVR tax, if you will.
- Too much product placement, or ads during the program are extremely annoying. Spike, G4, and USA are incredibly bothersome with promos for other shows during the show you want to watch. Ads on a crawler might fly if a crawler already exists: ESPN or E! for instance. Splitting the screen for ads would be awful.
I don’t think TV watching will go to an “a la carte” format either: TV would become more homogenous and limited than it already is, and I just don’t think people like micropayments, or even a point-based monthly system or anything like that.
Submit your solution to the problem in 100 words or less in the below comment section.
